Politics
The Fox Princess Knocks Out the King
I apologize if you’re getting tired of political commentary. But 2016 is a presidential election year in the United States and the stakes have never been higher.
For better or for worse, America is the leading nation in the world economically, militarily, and spiritually. We are also a nation in agonizing decline.
But three times in American history, God has brought revival to this nation to renew the culture and bless the world. I’m praying for another one, and for godly political leadership to arise from it.
Enter Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump.
This week the Fox princess knocked out the king.
For those not familiar, let me introduce you to Megyn Kelly, a rising-star on the Fox News Channel. Fox News is the most watched cable station in the United States. It was started by Roger Ailes nearly twenty years ago as an alternative to the liberal mainstream media in the US.
Fox’s oft-repeated goal is to be “fair and balanced”–bringing healthy debate from all sides of the political spectrum (while supporting traditional or Judeo-Christian values).
I’ll never forget turning on Fox years ago and watching Michael W. Smith sing an entire song live about the supremacy of Jesus Christ on an evening news broadcast.
I’ve been committed to watching ever since.
Megyn Kelly is a young, vivacious news anchor who hosts “The Kelly File” every weekday night at 9 pm (EST). Her juggernaut program is now second only to Bill O’Reilly’s “The Factor” as the most watched cable news program in the country.
Megyn Kelly is not my favorite broadcaster–though she’s smart, talented, has a great sense of humor, and seems to care about people and issues. She’s strong on three areas of public policy: the military (fighting evil in the world), the Constitution (she’s a lawyer who believes in Lex Rex) and free markets (the Good News applied to economics).
She is weaker on the moral or social issues of the day–where I take issue with her. She also comes across at times as what Rush Limbaugh calls a feminazi.
A bit too strong for me.
But overall, she’s a young, refreshing voice in the media who generally points her audience toward the truth.
She is, at the present time, the princess of Fox News.
As many of you know, in August of 2015 during the first Fox Republican debate, Megyn Kelly served as a moderator and asked a pointed question of GOP front runner Donald Trump.
Here it is:
“Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ …
Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.
Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”
Strong question. Fair question (he had said all the above). She and the other moderators asked equally hard questions of the other candidates.
But Donald Trump took offense, denounced Megyn Kelly, and began a five month feud in which he added her to his childish hit list.
She didn’t back down.
Fast forward to tonight.
When this article is sent to your e-mail box, it will be one hour before the second Fox News debate–taking place four days before the Iowa caucuses when the first votes for the 2016 presidential election will be cast.
Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace will again be moderating.
Donald Trump won’t be there.
He said this week he wouldn’t come because of his grudge against Megyn Kelly and Fox News (those aren’t his words, but that’s the reality). Up to this point, Donald Trump has soared as a political bully on the American stage who takes on the establishment, conventional wisdom, and every perceived grievance of the electorate.
But in this fight between little Megan Kelly and the The Donald, there’s only one winner:
The Fox Princess has knocked out the king.
He’s a no-show.
She will question the other candidates and Iowans won’t get to hear Donald Trump live in debate.
No matter how you spin it, I believe Trump’s “I’m taking-my-toys-and-going-home” tantrum is a mistake. It’s thin-skinned, petty, mean-spirited, narcissistic, and un-presidential. Will he do the same thing when he’s offended by Vladimir Putin or Ayatollah Khamanei?
Time will tell if other American voters agree with me.
I am constantly reminding myself that good governmental leadership boils down to character, competence and public policies.
- To what degree is the prospective leader’s character Christ-like, selfless and steady?
- Is he or she experienced in life, decision-making, running an operation and/or governing?
- Do the leader’s policies protect God-given rights and promote freedom and blessing?
On these three counts, Donald Trump is suspect on point one. He doesn’t appear to have the character and integrity that all great leaders possess.
So why is he soaring in the polls and even being endorsed by evangelical leaders ( e.g. Robert Jeffers and Jerry Falwell Jr.)?
Because the American people are looking for a king.
Some of Trump’s kingly traits are admirable. Tough. Strong. Non-PC. Anti-establishment.
But we better look deeper.
Many Americans are mesmerized by Donald Trump because of his king-like stature. We’re being betrayed by our current leaders, wimps on the world stage and robbing us economically. Many think Donald Trump is the only candidate who can turn the ship of state in the right direction.
But here’s the rub. Many are also smitten by three secular idols that make up the aura of Donald Trump: Money – he’s a billionaire. Sex – he’s married to a former super model. Entertainment – he’s a media star.
If Donald Trump were poor, married to the girl-next-door and camera-shy, do you think he’d be drawing thousands of people to his rallies? (Only Bernie Sanders fits that bill because he promises to give everybody free stuff).
The answer is no.
Yes, he has some populist qualities but he’s also the secular embodiment of greatness. And like the Israelites of old, be careful when you ask for a king. He may be a “head taller” than the rest, but his character weak.
You may get Saul when you really need David.
As to point three on the leadership test, no one has cautioned us better about voting for Donald Trump than Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University.
Here are his recent words:
“Anyone who is pro-abortion is not on my side. Anyone who calls women “pigs,” “ugly,” “fat” and “pieces of a–” is not on my side. Anyone who mocks the handicapped is not on my side. Anyone who has argued the merits of a government takeover of banks, student loans, the auto industry and healthcare is not on my side.”
“Anyone who has been on the cover of Playboy and proud of it, who brags of his sexual history with multiple women and who owns strip clubs in his casinos is not on my side. Anyone who believes the government can wrest control of the definition of marriage from the church is not on my side. Anyone who ignores the separation of powers and boasts of making the executive branch even more imperial is not on my side.”
“I’m a conservative. I believe in conserving the dignity of life. I believe in conserving respect for women. I believe in conserving the Constitution. I believe in conserving private property, religious liberty and human freedom.”
“I believe in morality more than I do in money. I hold to principles more than I yearn for power. I trust my Creator more than I do human character. I’d like to think that all this, and more, makes me an informed and thoughtful citizen and voter. I’ve read, I’ve listened and I’ve studied and there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing, in this man’s track record that makes Donald Trump ‘on my side.'”
“I refuse to let my desire to win ‘trump’ my moral compass. I will not sell my soul or my university’s to a political process that values victory more than virtue.”
Call that another knock-down.
Then go watch the Fox princess and her cohorts grill the other contenders for president of the United States.
I Finally Get President Obama
I followed closely and did my research on Senator Barack Obama during his ascent to power. It was important because he was a rising political star and eventually became the 44th president of the United States.
US presidents have a great influence on American life, the economy, cultural trends and also the state of freedom and liberty around the world.
The POTUS is the most influential political fugure on the planet.
Now that he is in the last year of his presidency, a light has gone on for me.
I finally get President Obama.
The first Revive America blog that I wrote detailed the 2008 presidential election and what I knew about both Barack Obama and then-challenger John McCain.
The genesis of that article came on a plane ride back from Asia in the summer of 2008. Whipping out a legal pad as I sat in coach on a Korean Airlines flight, I jotted down all that I knew about Barack Obama’s policy positions.
That article was published as “One Hundred Reasons I Will Not Vote for Barack Obama” and detailed his economic, social, and foreign affairs positions as I understood them at the time.
They proved to be quite accurate.
In 2008, I thought Barack Obama’s policies showed he was an ideological liberal and would govern from the left of the political spectrum. (He had run as a moderate.) Liberals generally favor government cronyism in economics, secular social values, and downplay America’s military role in the world.
That fits Barack Obama to a “T.”
I’d perused Mr. Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father. It revealed the strong anti-colonialism of Barack Obama Sr. that he passed down to his son. Much of President Obama’s foreign policy decisions seem to echo this call to down size America, especially in the Middle East and Africa.
That view of President Obama’s MO also makes sense.
I’d also studied the rise and evolution of progressive politics–the new, trendier name for American liberalism. Following in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt, progressives want to transform America into the image of a European social welfare state. Thus the need for wealth distribution by taxing the rich and giving out freebies to everybody else.
Check another box for under understanding the president.
But now after viewing his presidency through the prism of seven years of speeches, rhetoric, executive actions, court battles, legislative achievements and Supreme Court decisions, I believe I have a better understanding on what makes our current president tick.
I believe I understand the Obama Doctrine–his primary operating philosophy. It is this:
Don’t discriminate against anybody–with one exception.
If you reflect on what Barack Obama has done over the last seven years, his accomplishments, policies, and battles all come down to fighting discrimination as he sees it.
Here are some examples:
Health Care
His largest legislative success, what we call Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), was aimed at non-discrimination against the uninsured in the United States–those with existing pre-conditions (requiring more expensive healthcare), and the poor in general. He felt that the free enterprise system of health care (which was the best in the world at the time) discriminated against some folks.
So he “fixed it” and forced us down the path toward socialized medicine now being touted by Socialist Senator and Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
Of course, nineteen million Americans still don’t have healthcare and costs are up and services are down. Socialism doesn’t work in any business domain. It just gives a “feel good” experience to those concerned about “medical discrimination.”
Immigration
The Obama Doctrine is equally clear in this area of not discriminating against those who come across our border illegally. They should be protected from the law in sanctuary cities, get jobs, work–and in some cases even vote. But they should never be called “illegal” but rather “undocumented.”
Sounds like they lost their visas somewhere. (Woops–they never had one because they entered the country illegally.)
The Administration’s encouragement of open borders, the mass migration of Central American children, and lax deportation reveal his desire to not discriminate against anybody who wants to come here.
I agree with one immigration decision made by this Administration: The Dream Act. Children of illegals should not be held accountable for the sins of their parents (Exekiel 18:20).
Women
President Obama based both of his election campaigns on a phony war about discriminating against women in the marketplace. He said that women made seventy cents on the dollar to men; That women were not promoted like men in the workplace; That women needed special rights for maternity leave, child care and other government programs.
Of course it wasn’t true. Woman have equal rights and opportunities in America that are the envy of the world. President Obama should have been speaking up for the rights of women in Muslim nations.
LGBT
Much of the Obama presidency has concentrated on diminishing the Christian vestiges of sexual morality in this country (such as marriage) and replacing it with the atheist/secularist version of non-discrimination against any form of sexual immorality.
Legalizing gay marriage was the big win in this anti-discrimination category and was celebrated by lighting up the White House with the colors of the rainbow.
The final thrust in this anti-discrimination crusade is trans gender acceptance–attempting to give .01 percent of the US population the “right” to have every public bathroom in America neutered. This allows a man or a woman who thinks they are the opposite to walk into a restroom or locker room and bare their private parts (to the horror of the other 99.99 percent).
So much for sexual sanity and democracy. Anti-discrimination will rule the lieus!
African Americans
I’m proud of the civil rights progress we’ve made in the United States. At a university class I taught last night, I showed the entire “I Have a Dream” speech delivered by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King on August 28, 1963 in Washington, D.C. There used to be institutional racial discrimination in this nation. God used MLK and others to eradicate most of it fifty years ago.
Not in Barack Obama’s eyes. From the Ferguson riots, to the burning of Baltimore, to the war on police, to inviting the head of Black Lives Matter to the State of the Union address, President Obama keeps insisting that blacks are systemically being discriminated against in the urban centers of the nation.
Not true. More blacks are incarcerated because they commit more crimes. They commit more crimes because 70% grow up without dads and live in poverty as a result. There’s no discrimination here–just a neglect in evangelism, discipleship and social incentives to strengthen the black family.
President Obama missed a great opportunity, as our first black president, to strengthen African-American families. Instead, he beat the drum of racial discrimination for votes and political pandering.
Muslims
The final aspect of President Obama’s Doctrine of no discrimination is seen in his prosecution of the War of Terror. He rarely uses that term. He calls Islam a religion of peace. He will unleash the American military to defeat ISIS and will not call the jihadists of the world what they are: terrorist Muslims that are following Mohammed’s example.
President Obama does not want the world discriminating against his father’s and step father’s religion. So he doesn’t weep when heads are cut off, and doesn’t say that terrorism comes from a traditional strain of Islam that goes back fourteen hundred years.
Meanwhile, the Middle East is on fire, millions of Muslim refugees are de-stabilizing Europe, and jihadists are emboldened kill Americans here.
I could give numerous other examples of our president’s non-discrimination mindset. It’s clear from looking at the full array of President Obama’s policies that his central operating ideology is:
Non-discrimination–with one exception.
It’s not making judgments on anything or anybody–with one exception. It’s celebrating cultural diversity–with only one exception.
That exception, which, in his view, should be discriminated against is biblical values and faith in Jesus Christ.
The evidence of President Obama’s war on biblical values is abundant:
- Forcing Catholic charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for condoms and abortions through the ACA.
- Persecuting non-profit organizations via the IRS for their faith and free market principles.
- Promoting freedom of worship (only in your building) instead of freedom of religion (everywhere in public life).
- Radically promoting abortion and the selling of aborted baby body parts (Planned Parenthood).
- Negating ala the Supreme Court the 5000 year definition of marriage (that comes from Genesis chapter 2).
- Not participating in the National Day of Prayer each May (the only president to do so).
- Welcoming thousands of Muslim refugees and refusing Christian ones.
- Persecuting Christian colleges and seminaries. (Right now 47 Christian colleges are suing the federal government over religious freedom).
And on and on.
President Obama, at his core, does not believe in making any moral judgments (discrimination) against anyone or anything–except the Christian faith.
Why the exception?
Because the spirit or mindset influencing him disdains America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the true meaning of freedom which comes from right living, America’s role in world evangelization, and the protection the US provides against evil around the world.
That spirit wants to persecute and destroy Christ, his ways and his followers (Revelation 12: 13-17).
Under the guise of non-discrimination.
Get it?
I’ve Made My Decision for Election 2016
A number of months ago I likened the 2016 presidential election to the National Football League.
I said that there were many good teams (sixteen Republican candidates) and I wanted to see them compete in the regular season (early debates and campaigning).
Then they would fight it out in the playoffs (early voting states) and then I would decide who I was going to support.
That was then and this is now.
I’ve already made my decision for 2016.
I’ve also made my football pick as the NFL playoffs begin. A number of good teams that will compete in the wild-card round, then the division playoffs, and the conference championships to earn a spot in the Super Bowl. I believe it’s possible that New England, Denver, Carolina, and Arizona could go all the way.
But you heard it here first: The Seattle Seahawks will win the 50th Superbowl on February 7, 2016.
Now back to the more important contest.
Leaders don’t ultimately determine the fate of nations, but they can influence either their revival and prosperity or their decline and malaise. Many examples stand out of how godly kings were instruments of renewal in early Israel and Judah (e.g. David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah). There are also examples of bad leadership that led to national demise (e.g. Rehoboam, Jereboam, Ahab and Manasseh).
However, it is the people that ultimately determine the fate of nations and civilizations. And since we don’t have many kings in our day (though some might disagree with me on that), but rather vote for whom we want to represent us in leadership positions, it’s even clearer that the folks are in the driver’s seat.
We elect bad leaders when we ourselves are uninformed and apathetic. We elect good leaders when we are wise and engaged. Modern-day elections are a “mirror” on the righteousness or immorality of the majority (or influential minority) of a nation.
In 2016, We, the People of the United States have a big decision to make for president of the United States.
I’ve voted for a number of Democrats in my lifetime and I wish I would have voted against Richard Nixon in 1972 when I first voted in a presidential election.
But this year that won’t be a consideration.
Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner on the Democratic side, but I couldn’t vote for her due to reasons I will soon share. Bernie Sanders is a very passionate man, but he is energetic about the wrong things (getting Big Government to control more of our lives). His brand of socialism is usually the second-to-the-last-stop on the train wreck of national destruction–just above either communism or dictatorship.
America doesn’t need an increased bloating of statism.
Martin O’Malley is a decent former governor, but doesn’t have any traction. I predict that Clinton and Sanders will duke it out for a number of months and Clinton will emerge as the nominee–if she’s not indicted by the Justice Department for her personal e-mail charade.
Then, all bets are off on the Dems side.
So, I’m going to support and vote for a Republican. I don’t like some aspects of the Republican Party which, in many ways, has become “Progressive-Lite” in Washington D.C.
But this year there is no alternative. Historically, the Rs have stood for faith, family, God, life, freedom, smaller government, and fighting evil more than the other party.
George Washington was Republican in “heart”and our greatest president (“First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen”–Henry Lee). Abraham Lincoln was second, and the very first Republican president who saved the Union and abolished slavery.
Another admirable Republican was Ronald Reagan whose economic and military policies ultimately brought down the Evil Empire (USSR) which enslaved half the world in the 20th century.
What made these men good presidents and what is my criteria for choosing our next leader?
The measuring stick has three clear lines on it:
1. Character–usually influenced by their faith in God. Are they men or women of faith, integrity, justice, compassion, fairness, humility and other godly characteristics? That’s my number one citeria because, in the end, right makes might as Lincoln famously said. Since righteousness exalts a nation (Proverbs 14:34) then righteous leaders are needed to renew it and guide it.
2. Competence. Does the prospective leader have a strong leadership resume and experience? Do they know how to lead and inspire people? Have they served admirably in either the private or public sector and do they have the skills to guide one of the largest nations on earth?
3. Policies are the final leg to the “Good Leadership Stool.” Will the new president’s ideas strengthen and encourage faith in God, promote strong marriages and families, ignite economic growth and opportunity, stand for life and justice, and protect the American people and bring blessings to other nations?
I also take into account factors which include campaign organization, elect ability, diversity, the need of the hour, and other considerations.
With that in mind, I’m enthusiastically supporting Ted Cruz in 2016.
Ted is a man of strong evangelical faith and consistent character. He has a tremendous resume as an attorney, Solicitor General of Texas, and US Senator who has uniquely fought the Washington establishment. He is a skilled orator and debater–maybe the best in the field as seen in the debates. And his policies are right down the line in favor of faith, family and freedom.
He is young, vibrant, would be our first Hispanic president, and has the best grassroots organization to win in the entire country.
Showing breadth of support, his campaign raised $47 million in 2015 which included nearly 700,000 small donors (we are one of them). Those donors cover 66% of all US zip codes.
Ted Cruz has state leadership teams–1,400 strong in membership–in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, Minnesota, Florida, Arizona, Michigan, and Washington. They’ve also announced state chairs in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Idaho, and California.
In the first four primary and caucus states–Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada–the Cruz team has county chairmen in place in all 171 counties. And after the first four states, they have congressional district coordinators in place in each of the 163 congressional districts that comprise the 24 states that hold their primary or caucus before March 15th.
Additionally, the state teams have access to over 175,000 volunteers across the nation who have signed up to help make Ted Cruz the next president. That’s why Politico says: “Cruz has Trump and the rest of the field beat on organization.”
For that and the big three reasons, I’m voting for Ted Cruz.
If he’s able to become our next president, I’d like to see him put together a “Dream Team” of other leaders (such as Ronald Reagan did in 1980) to help bring a needed jolt of reformation to our government. How about these, or like appointments?
- Marco Rubio as his running mate–fellow Senator, Latino with a Catholic background and great vision and speaking skills.
- Donald Trump as Secretary of State (how would you like him negotiating with the ayatollahs?).
- Lindsey Graham as Secretary of Defense.
- Ben Carson as Surgeon General.
- Chris Christy as Attorney General.
- Rudy Guliani as head of Homeland Security.
- Carly Fiorina as Commerce Secretary or Technology Czar.
- Jeb Bush as Secretary of Energy.
- John Kasich as head of Health and Human Services.
- Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel.
- John Bolton as UN Ambassador.
- Dana Perrino as Press Secretary.
- Franklin Graham as Counselor to the President.
- Paul Ryan continuing as Speaker of the House.
- Ron Paul serving as Federal Reserve Chairman.
- and Rand Paul taking over from his fellow Kentuckian as Senate Majority Leader.
I think you get the idea.
Of course both the Seahawks and Ted Cruz might not win. That’s okay. May the very best man or woman rise to the challenge.
But I’ve made my decision and encourage you to make yours.
Ted Cruz for US president in 2016.